Ordered,
	That S.O. 209(1) of the Standing Orders relating to Private Business (time for delivery notices, etc.) shall have effect in relation to the deposit of Petitions in connection with the Crossrail Bill on or before 16th September 2005 as if on a day on which the House does not sit deposit were required to be made between 11.00 a.m. and 3.00 p.m..—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Peter Luff: I am always suspicious of business motions, particularly no explanation is offered for them. I hoped that at least a brief explanation would be forthcoming. I am concerned, because an earlier business motion, to which, I freely admit, I did not pay sufficient attention, precluded the amendment of instructions to the Crossrail Bill Committee. Paragraph (b)(i) of the Government instruction is particularly offensive, as it prevents the Committee from considering extensions beyond Maidenhead to Reading. An earlier business motion limited the powers of the House to provide effective scrutiny of the Bill, and I am now concerned about the implications of the present business motion. The Government owe us at least an explanation of the need for it.

George Galloway: rose—

Peter Luff: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is always unsatisfactory if the House votes on a motion, the purpose of which it does not understand. The Government have given no explanation of the motion so far. If we do not pass the motion, am I right that the House could not vote on the subsequent motions after Second Reading?

Mr. Speaker: In that case, allow me to put the question.
	Question put and agreed to.

Alistair Darling: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	London has relied on railways and underground lines built largely by the Victorians and it now needs Crossrail if it is going to cope with the needs of the 21st century. The Bill will provide the powers needed to build Crossrail, a new railway that will bring enormous benefits not only to London, but to the south-east and the wider United Kingdom.
	As I suggested in the previous debate, I want to cover three main areas. The first involves the procedures involved with a hybrid Bill. During that part of my speech, I want to cover the points raised by. Members on both sides of the House relating to the instructions. The second area involves what the Bill does, and the third covers the proposed route. That might help. Members to time their interventions.
	The procedures in relation to a hybrid Bill are unusual, so the House would benefit from some discussion on that before we come to discuss the route. I hope that, subject to stretching your patience, Mr. Speaker, I shall be able to give way to all Members who wish to raise points. I recognise that a Bill of this importance, and which impacts on the interests of a large number of people along its route, is bound to be controversial—not necessarily on party political grounds, although some hon. Members are against the proposal on principle—and it is in the interest of the House to debate these matters properly.
	I now come to the nature of the Bill. The last hybrid Bill to be introduced into the House, over a decade ago, dealt with the channel tunnel rail link. Hybrid Bills are used for projects of such national importance that it is appropriate for the Government to take the lead in strategic development. However, because they deal with specific private interests, they are dealt with differently in both Houses of Parliament. A hybrid Bill has aspects of both a public and a private Bill. It is introduced by the Government and, like any public Bill, contains provisions that either affect everyone or affect particular classes of people.
	The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) asked how Crossrail would link into the national network, in relation to trains running to the west of Paddington. I shall come to that issue later in my speech, but I mention it because it will be dealt with by an unusual procedure because this is a hybrid Bill. If we give the Bill a Second Reading, it will go to a Special Select Committee that will have the power to hear petitions against it. That is where people who have concerns about their property or about disturbances, for example, will have an opportunity to be heard. That Select Committee will sit a quasi-judicial capacity. It then goes to a Standing Committee—most of the House will be familiar with that as it is a normal procedure on a Bill—then on to Third Reading and then to another place, where exactly the same procedure is followed.
	It is patently obvious that because the Bill has such long stages in both Houses it will take some considerable time to go through Parliament, which means that there ought to be ample opportunity for just about every possible complaint and comment to be heard. As a word of caution, however, the last Crossrail Bill fell precisely because there was a lack of clarity as to the reason for the Bill in the first place—because it was a private Member's Bill, the House never decided on the question of principle—and it eventually collapsed under the sheer weight of objections. I very much hope that we can avoid that fate.
	The procedural position is that if the Bill gets its Second Reading tonight, it will be sent to a Select Committee, in accordance with the instruction that we have tabled—to be fair, I think that all the instructions do that—with an opportunity for members of the public and others to petition against the Bill, so that their objections can be tabled, and which the Select Committee can then hear. The point is that there will be ample opportunity for members of the public and Members of both Houses of Parliament to have their concerns dealt with.

Alistair Darling: Hon. Members should not worry. Everyone will have a chance to intervene. On this occasion, patience will be rewarded.
	The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar's instruction would restrict the termini to Paddington and Liverpool Street stations, which would make it far narrower than the Government are proposing. I must say that it would destroy the economic case for the development because unless the railway line runs beyond the two ends of the tunnel, it becomes an extremely expensive proposition.

Simon Hughes: The Secretary of State is being very helpful. Will he clarify two final things on the instruction process? Will he explain the implication of the first bit of his instruction? What are the environmental matters that cannot be considered by the Select Committee? I think the phrase is,
	"prevented from considering by the practice of the House".
	Do we all understand the Secretary of State to say that the three matters that were in the additional instruction, but not in his, are actually all public policy matters that he believes it is perfectly proper for Committee and the whole House to consider as and when they want to?

Theresa May: With due respect, the comments that the Secretary of State has just made appear contradictory. The whole point about the national rail network is that access to it is determined by the Office of Rail Regulation, so the balance of priorities between certain train operating companies and the freight services is determined by that office. The Bill will take that power away from it and enable the Secretary of State to require that certain services are given priority. He cannot justify the statement that Crossrail will be a normal part of the national rail network operated by the Office of Rail Regulation and support the Bill.

Alistair Darling: I said a few moments ago that I envisaged that the railway would be regulated by the Office of Rail Regulation. Our difficulty is that we are trying to build a new railway that will be partly completely new—the tunnels—and partly integrated with the existing network. Powers must thus be taken through the Bill to make that happen and to allow the Crossrail services to run. It is intended that the railway will be part of the national network and that it will be regulated by the ORR. Although it is perfectly true that one cannot run two trains on one piece of railway at the same time—I will come on to deal with questions about the west country service, which I know affects the right hon. Lady—the intention is that Crossrail will be run as part of the national network. Yes, it will provide London commuter services, but it will also provide links for different parts of the United Kingdom.
	The right hon. Lady should have no fear that this will somehow be a bit of railway that will be run entirely independently from the rest of the network. That would not be possible due to its very nature. If that were the intention, we would do precisely what the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) envisages in the instruction that he has tabled and stop it at the tunnel ends, but that is not the case.

Alan Duncan: I begin by thanking the Secretary of State for the thoroughness, the patience and the courtesy with which he has treated the House. He has been generous in giving way and he has answered some pretty technical and complicated questions. I think that he has largely overcome the original confusion that was sewn about the remit of the Select Committee. I think that the House will be grateful for the understanding tone that he has adopted towards this difficult and complex issue.
	The country needs infrastructure. Building high-capacity routes in a densely populated country is an evermore complex and controversial endeavour. I hope that at least in principle, if not in every detail, we can make the issue of Crossrail something that has cross-party support.
	Britain is crowded. In the past few centuries, we built our infrastructure very well—we constructed ports, canals, railways, airports, roads and now, by virtue of this project, we will construct railways again. As we build more, however, everything becomes entwined, and as we are not building any more space, inevitably the facilities that we are trying to construct for the betterment of our life overlap and compete for that space. That is nowhere more so than in our capital city, which is congested, highly populated and has many intense traffic movements from day to day. We have built in and out of London; we have built the M25 around it, but we have not built anything across it. The project will go from east to west, and from west to east. Inevitably, it must be a Government endeavour or at least a Government-authorised endeavour, so that the powers needed to implement it are enshrined in law. That is what the Bill attempts to do.
	The Bill has been a long time a-coming. Any infrastructure project of this scale needs some push and drive. The people working on it need to adopt a "get on with it" attitude, balanced, as is clear from our deliberations today, by acute sensitivity to local and private concerns. Over the years, as I have said in previous debates with the Secretary of State, the country's infrastructure planning has been bedevilled by short-term horizons. The project attempts to take a longer view, and tries to solve a problem before we are completely bunged up and are compelled to do something about it. I lived in Singapore in the mid-1980s, and as we look across the world from west to east, we can see that that country had great planning horizons, and built great capacity, in excess of what was thought necessary at the time. As a result, it has a world-standard metro and a world-standard airport, which has capacity for even more flights.
	Henry Miller wrote:
	"Life, as it is called, is for most of us one long postponement."
	To some extent, that is true of the Crossrail project. For as long as I have been in the House, the concept has been hovering, waiting to be put into practice. It has been knocked off-course every now and then, particularly in 1994. One of the consequent costs is the escalation of the price that the country has to pay to make it happen. Something that began as a £2 billion project is probably now a £10 billion project, and we can comfortably predict that by the time it is completed it will be a £20 billion project.
	There is no point, however, in rehearsing the passage of events over the past 15 years. Instead, we should take our text from a letter in the Financial Times yesterday that referred to our forthcoming debate. It was signed by many senior business men, including the director general of the CBI, the chairman of Citigroup and others, who urged the Government to get on with it, as it is essential for the economic growth of London and the United Kingdom. We must, as the Secretary of State largely did, look at the route, its planning and construction, as well as its interrelationship with the plans for construction projects for the 2012 Olympics. We must look at funding—the Secretary of State did not say very much about that, so we may wish to return to the subject later. We must look at the effect of the project on local interests and the intensity of local opinion along the route and among people who believe that they are affected by the knock-on effects of this massive undertaking. We must look at the interaction with other networks, and the regulatory regime, mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), that will govern it.
	It is proper to put on record the scale of this huge engineering project. If it is undertaken as we expect, it will be one of the wonders of the world. I shall paraphrase the details rather than read them all out, as hon. Members will be familiar with them. There will be 46 km of massive tunnels, some of them 50 m below street level, going under huge buildings and built-up areas of London. That is an enormous engineering endeavour, the likes of which we have never seen before.
	There will be safety issues. In the current security climate, the ventilation and escape shafts are a poignant detail that the Committee will want to study. We will also have to examine the interrelationship with existing railway corridors. Although the Secretary of State offered us some reassurance this afternoon, that interrelationship may pose a problem because we are trying to squeeze if not a quart into a pint pot, a great deal of activity on existing railway capacity, which will be pushed to the limit.
	We are told that Crossrail will be running by 2013. I suspect that is quite an ambitious finish date. A project of such a scale may well take a decade, but it is clear that some of the other suggested schemes are not realistic, and Crossrail is currently the only one on the blocks.
	I said that Crossrail would probably be at least a £10 billion project, and perhaps even more. There is an estimated shortfall in funding of about £7 billion. I would appreciate hearing more from the Minister in his winding-up speech about how that will be made up, and what sort of undertakings and guarantees will be given at the beginning of the project that the money will be available to see it through to completion. All of us can cast our mind back to the channel tunnel, a comparable infrastructure project that was always bedevilled by increased costs and insufficient funding to underpin it, such that it almost went bankrupt. We need to make sure that Crossrail is fully underpinned and can definitely go ahead.

Alan Duncan: I shall come in a moment to the interrelationship between the private sector and the state. That is extremely important, and no doubt the hon. Lady's magnificent Committee will want to look into the matter as well.
	We need a clearer picture of the structure of revenues and funding. The Montague report identified five main potential sources for funding the construction of Crossrail: net travel-generated revenues, which in plain English means fares; any appropriate European Union subventions—it would be interesting to know what they might be; contributions from London businesses and/or individuals, which might be voluntary or mandatory; property revenues; and direct Exchequer support. That is quite a complex structure of financing, with a large number of elements, all of which are fairly uncertain, unless the Minister is able to reassure us at the end of today's debate. I hope that a clearer picture of funding can be forthcoming.

Alan Duncan: My hon. Friend has hit on a serious point. We have been told that the likely completion date for Crossrail is 2013—if one allows a couple of years for slippage, it is 2015—and the Olympics will take place in 2012. If the hybrid Bill process is completed in both Houses in two years' time and the Bill is enacted, will significant construction get under way before the Olympics? I hope that the Minister answers that question in his winding-up speech. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State spoke for nearly an hour, but every word was worth it, and we are grateful for his thorough approach.
	I do not want to speak for much longer, because I know that today's debate is an important forum for other hon. Members to express their concerns for their individual constituencies. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) and her constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie), are concerned about the question, "Why not Reading?", which has been answered, although not conclusively, this afternoon. My hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff), for Witney (Mr. Cameron), for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) and for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper) are concerned about the knock-on effects. My hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) is deeply concerned about the construction of the depot in his constituency, and if he succeeds in catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have no doubt that he will enthusiastically explain the matter in great detail.

Alan Duncan: A wag once told me that I, of all people, prove that one can squeeze a quart into a pint pot—or, perhaps, a pint into a half-pint pot.
	My hon. Friend's point is valid, and the hybrid Bill process is designed to study such issues in detail. We have not seen a hybrid Bill dealing with such a project for a long time, and it will be interesting to see whether the procedure has stood the test of time and can cope with a project of this magnitude.
	Before I finish, I should like to return to the interrelationship between Crossrail and existing networks and the regulatory regime. Many in the industry who have made representations feel that the Bill undermines the principle of independent regulation. They think that its powers could negatively affect Network Rail's ability to deliver services and that it challenges the wider principle of independent regulation, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead suggested. Taken together, clauses 21 to 26 allow the Secretary of State to override the existing processes and access rights that are designed to ensure that timetables reflect the needs of all route users. They enable the Secretary of State to instruct—not just permit, but instruct—the Office of Rail Regulation to amend existing track access agreements to give priority to Crossrail.
	That appears to establish a regime not of equity but of preference, and therefore challenges the even-handed approach that the ORR is currently required to display. The existing regulatory structure allows the ORR to operate in a balanced way, taking account of the overall need of the entire rail network, but the Bill fundamentally undermines and changes the ORR's role in that respect. It will allow control of the Crossrail tracks to be taken away from Network Rail and force the ORR to give priority to Crossrail trains over those of other operators. That would give Crossrail trains exclusive access to half the track capacity on the routes between Paddington and Maidenhead and between Stratford and Shenfield, which would substantially reduce the capacity available to non-Crossrail users on those routes, force reductions in current service levels, and make future growth impossible. A serious knock-on issue of capacity and track congestion flows from the Bill.
	One of the main representations that we have received, which is very strongly felt, concerns freight. The industry has expressed concern that there is a real risk that large quantities of bulk materials—including aggregates, cement, fuel oil and domestic waste—and high-value goods such as cars and manufactured products in containers will be forced from rail by Crossrail services. It is important, in trying to maintain a cross-party consensus, that the Minister should provide a good rebuttal of that suggestion if he can.
	The railway industry has made every effort to advise the Secretary of State of its concerns. In reply, he said that
	"there are no plans to acquire permanently part of the Network Rail network for dedicated use for Crossrail services".
	He also said:
	"It follows that Network Rail will operate and manage services on Network Rail's network including Crossrail services."
	There are none the less concerns that such powers remain in this hybrid Bill. We are concerned that the Secretary of State's words are not matched by the black and white text of the Bill; and in the end, as we have learned to our cost in many other areas of legislation, what it says in black and white matters most, because that is what courts will decide on, however honest the Secretary of State is.
	I do not want to detain the House any longer because many Members want to speak. This project has been a long time a-coming. We should like to see a broad coalition of support behind it, but one that is sensitive and responsive to the local needs and concerns detailed by many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. Looking to the welcome award of the Olympics to Britain in 2012, we want to hear that that project will not unreasonably delay the Crossrail project. In short, I say to the Government that they should get on with this if they mean it, but if they do not, they should not raise false hopes and lead everyone a merry dance. We should like it to happen; let us make it happen.

Mike Gapes: I speak as the chair of the all-party Crossrail group and I begin by paying tribute to Linda Perham, who established it in the previous Parliament. Without the group, perhaps we would not be considering Second Reading at this time.
	As chair of the all-party group, I emphasise that it consists not only of hon. Members of all parties but people with very different views. Members of the group will raise some concerns and criticisms in the debate because we are all committed to improving transport across London and to the national benefits and implications of that. However, we also acknowledge that we have constituency and local interests, which must be taken into account.
	I want to comment on my constituency because Ilford is one of the areas that will benefit greatly from Crossrail. Ilford station is between Stratford and Shenfield and my constituency also contains the stations of Seven Kings and Goodmayes. Chadwell Heath is at the edge of my constituency, although the station is in the neighbouring constituency. The platforms in those stations will need to be extended, which will involve considerable reconstructive engineering work, the removal of waste, many vehicles and possible disruption to the lives of many of my constituents.
	I am unique in that I am the only Member on Crossrail's designated route who will have a loop in the constituency. That means the possibility of freight and passenger trains being able to pass each other. That, too, will involve considerable work, including the construction of a line close to the back gardens of many of my constituents. I want to place that on record because, when we discuss practicalities and implications, it is possible that the lives of many people will be disrupted in the short term for the greater good.
	If the Bill is successfully piloted through Parliament and gets on to the statute book, and construction work begins in 2007, 2008 or 2009 in my constituency and others, it will have an impact on many people. There are concerns about adequate shielding from noise and construction work, the times of day when the work will be undertaken, shielding from lighting to prevent people from being woken up or kept awake at all hours and the times when vehicles move materials backwards and forwards. All those matters will have an impact. Many other hon. Members will have similar worries when work is carried out in their constituencies. I therefore hope that the Committee can take those matters into account when it receives the many petitions and submissions that will doubtless arrive in the next few weeks.

Mike Gapes: Regrettably, most of the land in my constituency seems to have been built on for housing and high-rise flats. I am not sure that we have a location as suitable as that in Romford. I hope, however, that discussions can take place about making sure that brownfield sites are used and that the needs of the community are taken into account. I am sure that the issue will be resolved in due course to the benefit of all of us in London, not least the hon. Gentleman's constituents.
	I have detained the House for long enough, and I want to allow other Members to speak. Crossrail is supported by a spectrum of organisations in London, by employees, trade unions, community organisations and commuters, and by a wide spectrum of interests of all kinds. Let us unite together and make sure that it becomes a reality.

Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Clearly, we have to consider what is in the public domain, and we have a large body of evidence from Crossrail and a much smaller body of evidence from Superlink. The general feeling is, quite rightly, that we should proceed with the Crossrail scheme before us.
	Other issues raised in response to the environmental statement were working hours and noise. I hope that the Minister will comment briefly on them, particularly if, as some respondents claim, the noise levels will seriously breach World Health Organisation limits. I believe that I have covered the main points that emerged from the environmental statement.
	I want to move on to the helpful briefing from the industry, which many Members have received. It is worth highlighting the main organisations that contributed to it—freight operators, Network Rail, BAA and the Rail Freight Group. If I have any concern about the Crossrail Bill, it is that it has succeeded in uniting all those different groups in expressing such serious reservations about it. The briefing highlights the fact that more than 500,000 people travel on services provided by Great Western and Heathrow Express, while more than 200 freight trains use the rail corridors.
	The industry's view, with which I am sure all Members agree, is that Crossrail should be integrated in, and operated as part of, the national network—the Secretary of State gave some reassurance on that point—that it should be subject to the existing regulatory framework and managed by Network Rail within the existing operational structure. It believes that amendments will be required to recognise the rights of existing rail users, to ensure that there is sufficient capacity for existing and future rail users and to safeguard the independence of the Office of Rail Regulation. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that no such amendments will be required, as the Government already intend those points to be covered by the development of the Bill.The industry has specific concerns about the Bill's impact. There will be a new-build project, similar to the channel tunnel rail link, and a major construction project around existing rail services. The Minister will not be surprised that the industry's solution involves Network Rail taking responsibility for changes to the existing infrastructure, although the new-build could be handled separately. There are great concerns about fragmentation, a theme that has run through many contributions, although to give him his due, the Secretary of State has partially addressed them. As the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) said, the industry has concerns about the operation of Crossrail and its integration with the existing network. I hope the Minister will be able to satisfy the House that those concerns are over-stated.
	I have a few further points. A huge amount of work will be required for the Olympics. I understand that the Olympic team, the Crossrail team, Transport for London and the Mayor's office are all working closely together to ensure that there is proper integration and that the major works for Crossrail are not undertaken precisely when we need the transport network running smoothly in London. However, there is concern that the Crossrail Bill and the London Olympics Bill take different approaches to the Office of Rail Regulation.
	Clause 22 of the Crossrail Bill states that the ORR has an "overriding duty" to facilitate the operation of Crossrail to a specific date, whereas the London Olympics Bill requires the ORR only to
	"exercise the functions assigned or transferred to it . . . in a manner which will facilitate the provision, management and control of facilities for transport in connection with the London Olympics".
	Those seem to be different priorities, so I hope the Minister will address that point.
	The longest part of my speech should have dealt with how the scheme will be funded, but there is little to say on that significant point. We know that on 26 June Goldman Sachs and Lexicon—apparently, a corporate finance boutique, although I am not sure that we need a boutique to take charge of the matter—have been selected to advise the Government on the funding of Crossrail. An article on the subject states that the funding structure will be complicated,
	"with the possibility of a special London business rate being levied to help finance it".

Tom Brake: That is an interesting point, although I am not sure how easy it would be to establish the benefits that businesses might or might not derive. We certainly need an indication of the level at which the levy will apply. How large will a business have to be before it has to contribute? Regrettably, there is little to say about funding.
	The Bill is welcome and long overdue. It has the potential to transform an unexceptional public transport system in London into a world-beating one. However, there is consensus among Opposition parties and other partners that the measure will require detailed scrutiny and that its remit must be allowed to extend to issues such as integration. Taxpayers, especially London-based taxpayers, whether business or private, will be paying for the project for many years to come. London has already had one millennium dome inflicted on it; it cannot afford another. Nor can it afford a 15-mile stretch of tunnel that improves services for London's commuters at the expense of the rest of the country.
	The Bill is embarking on what promises to be an epic parliamentary journey—a bit of a rollercoaster. We must ensure that it arrives at its destination improved and able to deliver a greatly enhanced transport system for Londoners and other commuters alike. If we do not do so, it could suffer the same fate as its predecessor 15 years ago and be stifled at birth.

Nick Raynsford: I start by drawing attention to an interest that I have declared in the Register of Members' Interests as deputy chairman of the Construction Industry Council.
	I am pleased to support the Second Reading of the Bill, which is hugely important to the future of transport in London. Transport is widely recognised as London's Achilles heel. It regularly features as one of the downsides of life in what is otherwise recognised as one of the most vibrant and successful cities in the world.
	The problem of poor transport in London reflects continuing failure over much of the second half of the last century to invest adequately in transport infrastructure. As the Secretary of State rightly reflected in his speech, there must be severe worries about London's future economic success if that inheritance of under-investment in transport is not made good. That is one of the key factors that we should bear in mind.
	Where new investment in public transport has been made, notably the Jubilee line, it has proved resoundingly successful in opening up formerly depressed and disadvantaged parts of London and easing congestion on existing transport links. Developments in areas such as Southwark, Canary Wharf, north Greenwich, Canning Town and Stratford have all been enormously helped by the new Jubilee line. Crossrail has similar potential to ease congestion in central London and to support new development and regeneration, not least in the Thames Gateway area, which will be served by two links from Liverpool Street, one north of the river to Shenfield, the other passing through docklands south of the river to Abbey Wood.
	The scheme is not a new one. As we all know, it was first proposed in 1989, about 16 years ago, and progress has been painfully slow. Why is that? We all know that it is because of the cost. The scheme is highly expensive, depending on two new tunnels bored through central London—major engineering works that have been conventionally costed at about £10 billion, but, as the Secretary of State commented, the likely out-turn figures may be between £15 billion and £16 billion. That inevitably poses important and difficult questions about how the costs should be met, and specifically what the balance should be in the contributions respectively of the fare-paying users of the service, the general taxpayer and the business interests that stand to gain, some very significantly, from the project.
	The scope for substantial increases in values of property and of development sites adjoining and surrounding stations is increasingly understood. How best to recover a proportion of that planning gain is less well understood. In my view, it is essential for us to look carefully at this, in respect of Crossrail and other new rail and infrastructure developments, because I believe that this holds the key to making possible development that might otherwise not be regarded as economic.
	What is not, in my view, sustainable is the defeatist notion that because of the scheme's high cost, further delay is inevitable or even desirable. We have already seen too long a delay in bringing forward the Crossrail scheme. Further cost-driven delay would be not just a mistake but counter-productive, as the ultimate costs of delivering an essential element for the resolution of London's transport problems would be even higher.
	A similar mistake to which, unfortunately, the scheme has already been subject, is the false economy of eliminating necessary and desirable elements so as to reduce the cost. That has occurred with the Woolwich station, which was an integral part of the earlier proposals, but which has been deleted from the current scheme—albeit with the site of the station still safeguarded—purely for cost-saving reasons. If ever there was an illustration of the penny wise, pound foolish mentality, this is it.
	Woolwich is a major transport hub for a significant area of south-east London and is the focus of ambitious regeneration plans. Badly hit by the recessions of the 1980s and early 1990s and the decline of the traditional heavy industry that was the source of Woolwich's prosperity in the 19th and 20th centuries, it is at last beginning to see revival, with successful regeneration of the former Woolwich arsenal site. That incipient recovery would be given a huge boost by a new station involving rapid transport links to central and west London. The regeneration benefits of a Crossrail station at Woolwich are enormous.
	Not only would that opportunity be lost if the scheme progressed without a station at Woolwich, but there would be very serious transport disadvantages. There would be literally no stations over a six-mile section of the railway between Custom House and Abbey Wood. Furthermore, potential passengers from a wide swathe of south-east London would have no easy point of access to Crossrail. The only south-east London station would be Abbey Wood, which is not well placed to meet the needs of travellers from much of the Greenwich and Lewisham areas, and does not have the benefit of being a major transport hub, as is a Woolwich.
	Supporters of Crossrail in south-east London to whom I have spoken in recent months are almost unanimous in recognising the very substantial transport and regeneration benefits of a Woolwich station. Most are astonished at the proposal that the trains should pass underneath Woolwich without stopping, when there is a very suitable location for a station already safeguarded.
	Those of us who represent the London borough of Greenwich are sadly familiar with short-sighted thinking of that nature on previous infrastructure projects. The original Jubilee line proposal did not include a station at North Greenwich. Without it, the regeneration of the former British Gas site, derelict and heavily polluted, would never have taken place, with 12,500 new homes now being built on that site—a major contribution to the Thames Gateway—and the millennium dome. Whatever people feel about the millennium dome—I think particularly of the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), who made a predictably negative comment, probably not thinking about it—this project has had a huge impact on the regeneration of formerly derelict and abandoned industrial land, and the dome will provide a magnificent site for the gymnastics in the Olympic games in London in 2012. None of that would have happened if there had not been a station at North Greenwich. Fortunately, common sense prevailed. The North Greenwich station was built and it has been not just a catalyst for regeneration, but is proving to be a thriving transport hub.
	A few years later we went through an eerily similar process with the docklands light railway extension to Greenwich and Lewisham. Believe it or not, one of the cost-cutting proposals before that scheme got the go-ahead was to eliminate the station at Cutty Sark, one of London's most popular tourist destinations. Once again, our community in Greenwich had to run a high-profile campaign to reverse that false economy. Fortunately, we won. Cutty Sark station is now one of the most heavily used on the DLR network and the very idea of DLR trains passing underneath that site but not stopping is self-evidently ludicrous.
	I must question the sense of the Department for Transport in once again proposing to eliminate a very significant station in the borough of Greenwich as a cost-cutting measure. Conspiracy theorists—I am not one—might suspect a vendetta against our part of London. I prefer to attribute this to a cock-up rather than to a conspiracy. That is why I tabled an amendment instructing the Select Committee to have regard to the benefit of a station in Woolwich and its economic, transport and regeneration implications. I was surprised and a little disappointed to hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State express a rather negative view of that amendment. I can see no possible reason why the Select Committee should not consider the merits of a station at Woolwich and I do hope that when the Under-Secretary winds up he will make it clear that it is reasonable and proper for the Select Committee to consider this proposal as part of its consideration of the Bill.
	I shall briefly raise two points before concluding. The issue of conflict with freight and other users of the railway has been raised by a number of hon. Members, not least the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan). It is a very important issue and we have a specific concern about south-east London. A very large aggregates depot, which serves the Thames Gateway area and is likely to be a major source of aggregates for the Olympics and Crossrail as well as the Thames Gateway development, is sited in my constituency near the Angerstein junction. IT includes a freight link for very large quantities of aggregate brought in from the midlands by aggregate industries. Representatives of those industries have written to me, rightly expressing concern that their business could be affected by the proposals. It is not just a question of potential conflict for access to the track; there are also implications if reduced access were to lead to increased track access charges, which could make the rail transport of aggregates non-economic, in which case there would be a very substantial transfer of aggregate from rail to road, with huge environmental implications. Those issues need to be looked at very carefully indeed.

George Galloway: Owing to my special relationship with the Labour Whips earlier in my parliamentary life, I served in quick succession on the Committees that considered the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Bill and then the King's Cross Railways Bill, which was the longest running railway Bill since Isambard Kingdom Brunel. When I stepped off those great sets of parliamentary proceedings, it was my intention never to return to vast infrastructural projects again, but my detour to east London at the last general election places me slap bang in the middle—indeed, the epicentre—of the controversy that these proposals will cause, for my constituency is more seriously affected than any other.
	The House is full of Members this evening who support Crossrail as the rope supports the hanging man. I want to say, quite bluntly, that I just want to hang it. I am against it and will vote against it this evening for reasons that I hope to make clear—reasons such as those adduced by the secretary of the Woodseer and Hanbury residents association in my constituency, who wrote:
	"Crossrail is a project that will never pay for itself. The 2002 estimate of £15 billion is likely to cost £20 billion by the time it is built, especially if it is delayed until after the Olympic games—the cost of 40 new hospitals or more than 400 new schools".
	Of course, the cost could be very much greater than £20 billion.
	Crossrail is a five-day commuter service that will primarily benefit the City, but cause unnecessary harm to London's communities from the east end to Mayfair. The country, particularly London, will subsidise a suburban railway for ever, and the residents and small businesses of my constituency will pay the greatest price for a service designed to connect Canary Wharf to Heathrow airport.
	MPs are being asked to vote for the Bill even though the finances for the Crossrail scheme are not even being presented to Parliament. There can be no other country in the world that would seriously pass a Bill in its Parliament for a project that might cost £20 billion or more with the derisory amount of time that the Bill has been given by the Government this evening devoted to the issue of who will pay for it. I suspect that the public will end up underwriting a very considerable amount of the cost.
	The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, mentioned the millennium dome. In fact, this project might turn out to be 20, 25 or 30 millennium domes. Notwithstanding the enthusiasm of the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) for the millennium dome, which he says will be a wonderful gymnastics hall for a couple of weeks in a few years time, it will end up, of course, as the most expensive publicly funded super-casino in world history.
	If taxpayers pay for the railway for the next 30 years, sacrificing other projects, it should have the highest environmental and health impact standards and should not openly violate human rights. Crossrail has not properly considered the risk to human safety. It has failed to adopt the multi-modal approach originally demanded by the then Minister of State. That brings me to the point that I made in our preliminary debate, on which I hope that the Minister will now be able to advise the House.
	At 12 o'clock today, there was still not tabled in the papers for these proceedings the very serious matter of a barrister's legal opinion that Members are being asked to vote for something that is illegal. I refer to the paper submitted by Bindman and Partners. I shall read from the letter that the WHRA sent to the Bill team:
	"We have noted a serious omission in the tabled papers as part of the Government's responses. It does not include a letter from . . . Bindmans . . . You may be aware that the letter raises serious legal matters in relation to the Crossrail Bill . . . Please could you provide reasons for the omission of the letter from tabled papers as this prevents MPs from considering serious issues about procedure and compliance with the EIA and human rights obligations."
	I am ready to allow the Minister to intervene now if he is able, as he promised, to indicate why those papers are not among those tabled for these proceedings today. I see that he intends to remain sedentary—so perhaps later we will be informed of why that information, which goes right to the heart of the judicial review that will inevitably occur, is not before Members today, even though it should be.
	I am conscious of the fact that many Members want to speak, but if time permitted me, I would demonstrate in detail that there is no doubt that Crossrail has not produced systematic comparisons of alternatives, which it is obliged by law to do. It is legally required to consider alternatives, to supply information requested by the public and to allow them an opportunity to comment to ensure compliance with the environmental impact assessment directive and human rights provisions.
	Crossrail appears not to have considered any alternative route alignments between Liverpool Street and Canary Wharf. Crossrail has not considered any option without Whitechapel station. The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) misstated the position among my electorate. For the avoidance of doubt, let me make it clear that we do not want a station at Whitechapel. In so far as there will be a station at Whitechapel, it will cost about £200 million, forcing cost-cutting measures elsewhere in the project, which will impact on the placing of the tunnelling and other engineering work that is required.
	Let me volunteer something to the Minister: he should drop the Whitechapel station from the proposals. We do not need the Whitechapel station. Whitechapel has a perfectly adequate underground station at the moment. Moreover, it will be substantially overhauled by London Underground by 2009—an overhaul that would almost certainly be delayed if the Bill is passed and if a Crossrail station is built at Whitechapel.
	A Whitechapel station will be a disbenefit to us, not only for the reason that I have stated, but for another reason, which is a source of great anger on this subject in my constituency. A vast number of people commute into the Tower Hamlets to work and then commute out again. There are huge areas adjacent to Tower Hamlets where local people cannot get a job. There are great citadels of wealth in Canary Wharf and the City of London, with hardly a local person working in them. In the City of London, where tens of thousands of people work, there are only 88 Bangladeshis working in white collar jobs. Less than 10 per cent. of the people who work in Canary Wharf come from Tower Hamlets, and no one is able to give us a demographic breakdown of that 10 per cent. We already have a problem with local people not being able to get jobs in the area, and a Crossrail station at Whitechapel will merely make that problem worse.
	We understand from evidence that the six sites in Spitalfields were considered without environmental data and without proper consultation, contrary to article 1.5 of the EIA directive. Crossrail has failed to justify interference with the property rights of residents or shown any proper consideration of alternative alignments, contrary to human rights provisions. As the benchmark route and the location of work sites in Spitalfields is likely to cause significant harm, we ask the Minister—this was asked of him on 27 June in questions that were handed to him, and I hope that he will answer some of them soon—how will Crossrail remedy that error? Why were alternatives, such as tunnelling from both ends, not produced until after the deposit of the Bill and the production of the environmental statement?
	I say from my great experience, to which I referred earlier, that there is no engineering reason why the tunnel cannot be dug from both ends. The only reason is financial, because Crossrail wants to save the money that it would cost to dig from both ends. In that case, I demand a cost-benefit analysis, because that what Crossrail will save by digging from only one end will be paid for overwhelmingly by my constituents through damage to their businesses, their property rights, their environment, their health, and in many other ways. The possibility of tunnelling from the ends instead of going through Spitalfields was produced after the environmental statement and after it was demanded by residents, who are not engineers. We want to know why alternatives were not considered and compared before the benchmark alignments were chosen, because those alignments will undoubtedly form the basis for any subsequent discussion and will be difficult to move.
	There are many other questions on the list of, I think, 20 that were given to the Minister, but I do not have time to adduce them all this evening. I hope that he will seriously consider them, however, because my overarching point is that Crossrail will absolutely devastate my constituency. It will have three major tunnelling sites, yet it is the only part of the whole route said that will be affected in that way. The reasons behind that are financially driven—they are not driven by any other consideration.
	For those who are not familiar with Spitalfields Banglatown, which is the area that we are talking about, it has one of the densest populations in the capital. They are overwhelmingly poor people, a substantial proportion of whom are from the ethnic minorities and so will be disproportionately affected by the proposals. Some 60 per cent. of the population of Spitalfields Banglatown are of Bangladeshi origin. A growing and visible Somali minority lives in the area and there is a small indigenous white community. There is also a new group of young, upwardly mobile professionals in the area, who moved there precisely because it was the area that it was, but for six or seven long years it will be a ground zero.
	I hope that I can convey to hon. Members the impact that Crossrail will have. It will be like a major bombing raid on the east end. There will be three major tunnelling sites and a 2 m wide conveyor belt will operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week, for six years to carry spoil from the digging of those sites. It will go past people's houses—inches from their windows in some cases, and feet away in others. Ten-tonne lorries will come and go through this small, densely populated, poor, disadvantaged and multiply deprived area at the rate of one every five minutes, with consequent dangers for children at local schools and the health of local people—and male life expectancy in that part of London is already 6 per cent. less than that throughout London as a whole. Higher than average incidences of asthma, diabetes, blood pressure and other health problems are already present in this multiply deprived community, yet we are going to make a ground zero right in the middle of it that will devastate the community for years—day and night, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
	I will tell you my suspicion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as someone who has been the Member of Parliament for the constituency for only a few weeks. I suspect that the Government are doing this to our community because they would not dare do it to another community. They are doing to the east end what they would not dare do to the west end because they would not get away with it in the west end. The political representatives in the west end would raise such a hue and cry that it would be politically impossible to do such a thing. The highly educated and articulate people who know the way to lobby on such things would ensure that such action would not be taken.
	Our area was chosen because it was, politically speaking, a pushover. Until we dragged the local council into the fray with our political campaign, it was fully in favour of the Crossrail scheme. Until we dragged the then Member of Parliament into the fray due to our pressure, she was fully in favour of Crossrail. When they did enter the fray, they did so half-heartedly. Indeed, Tower Hamlets council is the origin of the reason for the station at Whitechapel, which, as I have already stated, we do not want because it will be a disbenefit to us, add to the cost and force certain engineering decisions upon us that will be disadvantageous. The council and the former Member of Parliament were not ready to stand up for local residents, which was why the Government chose this area, of all the areas, to be subjected to the demolition—the ground zero—that they intend to visit, if they get away with it, on the multiply deprived people of my constituency.
	I do not want to leave the issue of the racial character of the community because it is important. Banglatown is a national treasure. It is an international tourist destination. In looking from around the world at London as a tourist destination, one of the things that people look at is Banglatown. I know very well, because I live just off Brick lane, that people come from all over the world, all over London and all over Britain to see the community, its restaurants, shops and mosques, and all the other things that make Banglatown the national and international treasure that it is.
	The Minister is a fair-minded man, so I hope that he will accept my invitation to come and meet the communities. Today, I met residents associations, the Brick lane business association, the ethnic minority enterprise project, the Banglatown restaurant association, the Bangladesh welfare association and the Chicksand residents association. Chicksand is one of the poorest estates in Britain, in an area in which some of the poorest people in Britain live, yet it will be at the epicentre of the epicentre. People will not be able to move on the Chicksand estate for 10-tonne trucks—with their spoil flying in the wind, no doubt—for six long years, day and night, seven days a week.
	Well, things have changed. There is now a new political power in the area that is represented by my election victory. I tell the House that we intend to make this matter a major election issue in the run-up to the local council elections next May. We hope—we intend—to be the administration in Tower Hamlets council just 10 months from now. If we are, Tower Hamlets council will no longer be a pushover.
	I promise the Minister that if we win control of Tower Hamlets council, it will use every means at its disposal, and all its resources, to try to stop such devastation being visited on local people, so he should factor that into his consideration. He should also factor into his consideration the fact that he is no longer dealing with a Member of Parliament who is a pushover. Many groups are already preparing for peaceful, non-violent, civil disobedience to try to throw a spanner in the works, so all told, it would be better to give us a wide berth. We do not want the station. Give us a wide berth and go around us. Go along the river or go somewhere else. We do not want Crossrail. We are prepared to fight it and we will make it a very politically costly matter for the Government if they proceed along the route that they currently intend to follow.

Peter Luff: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate, and particularly grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) for bringing Isambard Kingdom Brunel into our considerations. My reading of schedule 8 suggests that technically the bridge that he built, which was such a triumph, and the bridge that was subsequently built to exactly the same design when the line was widened could be demolished, although I do not believe that the Secretary of State would condone such an act of vandalism.
	It is good that Brunel has been mentioned in the debate, as he built the first Crossrail. There is nothing new about what we are debating today. The first trains to go across London were Great Western trains, which went underground at Paddington and all the way to Aldgate. They were not viable and were withdrawn. I am sure that economic conditions in London have changed since then, but it is worth noting that there is nothing new about Crossrail—we have had it before.
	In principle, I support the idea of improving east-west rail links. Crossrail is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to make a difference to transport in the south-east, which could also benefit long-distance travellers, including those from my constituency, but if the country is to spend the kind of money envisaged by the Bill, we need to provide more than the Crossrail project offers. We all agree that we must do something. The project outlined in the Bill is something, therefore we must do that. That dangerous train of logic must not seduce us into thinking that the Bill automatically deserves our support tonight.
	I shall speak primarily about my constituents' interests. That is what I am here to do, and I am clear that the Bill is in direct contradiction to their interests. It is the end of all the dreams that we have in Worcestershire along the Cotswold line of improving the service to the level that we ought to have. Only last week, I believe, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), jointly with the chamber of commerce for Hereford and Worcester, wrote a letter to the Secretary of State asking for the track between Oxford and Worcester to be dualled all the way and for a better service. They should have done that when the Strategic Rail Authority's route utilisation strategy was up for grabs. That was the time to do that.
	If the Bill passes tonight in its current form, forget it. It is not worth spending the money on doing that because there will not be the capacity between Reading and Paddington for the additional services that we want. The Secretary of State spoke reassuringly about maintaining current service levels. Current service levels between Worcestershire and London are a scandal. They do not need to be maintained; they need to be dramatically improved. Since the new Adelante rolling stock has gone on to the First Great Western service, loadings have gone through the roof. It is standing room only on most trains. There is a market there crying out to be met, to take people off the roads and put them back on to the railways. Forget it, if the Bill passes.
	The Bill may well be an emperor, if not with no clothes, then with very few indeed. The aspect that could persuade me is the Reading-Maidenhead issue. If we could end the railway at Reading, not Maidenhead, with fast and semi-fast services instead of the ridiculous proposed crawling services beyond Paddington, I might be persuaded. I could happily get off a train at Reading, change to a semi-fast service into the centre of London, near where I wanted to be, but I am not prepared to get off a train at Reading, which I will almost certainly have to do, with fewer trains going through to Paddington, make a journey to Maidenhead or God knows where else, and then get on to the underground when I get to London. It is just not acceptable.
	We must consider the instruction to the Select Committee. I have raised the matter privately with the Secretary of State and he may by now be in a position to give definitive guidance. It is clear that the instruction is an instruction: it is what it says on the can. The Select Committee can do nothing but obey it. The Government are instructing the Select Committee not to consider anything beyond the terminus laid down in the Bill, which is Maidenhead. That means I must vote against the instruction, because it is fundamentally wrong. I hope that when the Minister winds up, he will be able to give some more definitive guidance. I am operating on the best advice that I have had, which is clear and unequivocal.
	I hope the hon. Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) is listening in his office. He went away happy, thinking that he had got from the Secretary of State what he wanted, and that he could vote for the Bill and for the instruction tonight. He cannot. I know that the Secretary of State was giving his view in good faith. I have spoken to him and I am convinced that he was speaking in good faith, but I am not convinced that he was right. We need to consider the matter carefully.
	The Secretary of State gave some useful reassurances about the other aspects of the instruction, which I had hoped to invite the House to consider this evening, about the issues relating to the likely impact of the construction and operation of Crossrail on rail freight services and other rail passenger services, and the extent to which Crossrail should be planned, operated and regulated as an integral part of the national rail network. He said those were matters more properly left to the Standing Committee stage of the Bill. Because of Bill's hybrid nature, some of those have cross-reference to the private sector implications of the Bill and should be considered by the Select Committee. I do not accept his argument in totality, although it has a good deal of validity.
	The problem is that we all know how Standing Committees work in this place. The Select Committee will have a very leisurely pace—perhaps too leisurely for the liking of its members, if they are to consider all the many petitions that they will receive. The Standing Committee will be ruthlessly timetabled and guillotined. It will not have the opportunity to consider the issues in depth, as they demand. I shall vote against the instruction on those grounds too, because it does not instruct the Select Committee that it may examine those issues. I am fearful that it will not, as a result of which the House will not.
	My understanding is that the rail industry supports Crossrail in principle, as long as it is considered part of the national rail network. The Secretary of State was reassuring in his remarks today, and I found myself wanting to agree with him. What he said was what I wanted to hear, but I fear, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead said, that the Bill does not do what the Secretary of State assured us it would do. I therefore have serious objections to the Bill.
	I am reminded of the famous Monty Python sketch, "The Spanish Inquisition". I began with just one objection. My objection is the capacity on the lines between Maidenhead and Reading—ah, and the continuation of the service between Maidenhead and Reading—oh, and—so I have diverse objections to the Bill. It began as one, but the more I considered it, driven by the issue of capacity between Maidenhead and Paddington, I realised that it was not just one or two objections, but such diverse elements as the impact on the existing rail network, funding, the narrowness of the design, the regulatory framework, and the failure to examine alternative solutions beyond the proposal in the Bill.
	I know that many other hon. Members who share my concerns had hoped to be present for the debate when it was scheduled to be held yesterday. I think particularly of my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper), who is extremely concerned, as am I, about the capacity issues. The fact that the attendance is relatively sparse tonight probably owes something to the change of business. Let us consider my hon. Friend's principal concern and that of Gloucestershire county council—the impact on the existing railway.
	Crossrail will pose serious difficulties during construction and beyond. It is a massive project. It will be comparable to a combination of the second phase of the channel tunnel rail link—the tunnelling under London and into St. Pancras, which is new build—and the west coast route modernisation, which is a major construction project. It will be lengthy and undoubtedly very disruptive to existing services. Along the two principal routes 2,200 freight, commuter, long-distance passenger and airport services per day will be affected. The Great Western route from Paddington to Maidenhead and the Great Eastern route from Shenfield to Liverpool Street will be seriously affected. The most noticeable impact will be on train services during engineering periods that require route closures. That will put huge pressure on other transport modes. If the work is carried out during the Olympics, God help us.
	Paddington will have particularly serious problems. The Bill allows for it to be shut for a month for construction purposes. We can bet our bottom dollar that it will end up being more than a month. Operations will be severely affected for several years during the construction of Crossrail, mainly because of the closure of Eastbourne terrace for that period and the changes required to the operational railway network. Network Rail's initial analysis suggests that some parts of the station will become unusable and that passenger flows will be severely affected. Taxis are a particular difficulty, because it would be a problem if Olympic athletes could not get taxis at Paddington.
	I shall not labour the point about freight terminals, which have already been discussed, but the severe disruption might mean that building materials and other goods are not delivered to London by rail and are displaced on to the roads, which would have severe environmental effects.
	I have discussed the construction phase, but what about the operational phase? Demand will be high and the operation will be intense. The network is already close to capacity, but the Bill will create no new capacity between Maidenhead and Paddington and between Shenfield and Liverpool Street. After construction, the capacity for freight and passenger services running west of Paddington to Cornwall, Devon, Bristol, north Somerset, Gloucestershire, south Wales, west Wales, Oxfordshire, the south Cotswolds and, of course, Worcestershire will be reduced from four lines to two. That is a lot of services to fit on to two lines.
	Clauses 21 to 26 provide for exclusive use by Crossrail of some of the existing rail lines out of Paddington and Liverpool Street. They effectively enable the Secretary of State to determine the minimum level of principal Crossrail services and to instruct the Office of Rail Regulation to amend or even terminate existing track access agreements to make way for minimum Crossrail services. They give priority to Crossrail over all existing passenger and freight services and undermine the concept of the independent regulation of the railway. If those provisions are enacted, they will severely reduce the frequency of train services into the two main termini, especially long-distance trains and commuter services from stations outside the Crossrail operation such as Twyford, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead mentioned.
	By undermining Network Rail's ability to manage Crossrail as an integral part of the overall network, which, despite the Secretary of State's calm honeyed words, would be the Bill's effect, the Bill will significantly reduce Network Rail's ability to deal with incidents on the network, because overall capacity will be reduced. In an exchange with some Government Members, the Secretary of State said, "There will be no capacity problem. I assure you that I would not bring the Bill before the House if I thought for a minute that there would be a capacity problem."
	The Government's consultation on the environmental issues resulted in a weighty tome, to which Network Rail contributed submission 55:
	"In the absence of a draft timetable for Crossrail services, it is difficult to assess how existing passenger and freight services could be readily accommodated. Furthermore, it is not possible to assess without knowledge of the Crossrail service plan if proposed infrastructure changes will adequately meet the existing and future needs of the industry . . . It has not been possible for Network Rail to conclude if the infrastructure proposed for Crossrail services will be sufficient to meet future needs without compromising the needs of other route users."
	That submission to the Department for Transport is dated 7 June 2005 and came from the group company secretary, Hazel Walker. In his speech, the Secretary of State said that all those matters have been settled, but the experts, Network Rail, say something different, which makes me nervous.
	We have addressed the issue of funding, so I will not labour the point, but it is another reason why I am worried. The Secretary of State said that the project will cost about £15 billion, and I think that his estimate is correct. The Treasury has apparently given the Department for Transport a 10-year budget, which does not include Crossrail. I hope that the money is available.
	The provisions on exclusive access to parts of the network for Crossrail services will adversely affect the existing First Great Western and One franchises—"One" is an ugly name, but that is what the franchise is called. Some 60 freight trains a day use those lines, so the situation will have interesting financial consequences.
	On the narrowness of the design in relation to Reading, the scheme could have brought so much to the south-east, the south-west and the west midlands, but those possibilities are being destroyed by the ridiculous obsession with Maidenhead. We all thought that fast and semi-fast services would run from Reading, but it seems that Crossrail will simply take over existing stopping services from the west into Paddington. Crossrail will not extend to Reading, which is a major rail junction. Richard Branson's Cross Country trains go through Reading. Indeed, one can travel to almost every place in the country that is worth visiting—for example, Edinburgh, York, Darlington and Bournemouth—from Reading, which is the logical place to end Crossrail.
	I was brought up near Maidenhead, a wonderful town where my great, great, great, great grandfather was once mayor, but it is an arbitrary place to end a railway—it is not a natural terminus. The Bill will rob a lot of value out of the First Great Western franchise and transfer services to Crossrail. Half the Crossrail services will not even go under London and will stop at Paddington, having crossed nothing except the Thames at Maidenhead. The project looks wonderful, but, as I have said, is the emperor really wearing any clothes?
	Why have we not examined the possibility of using this huge sum of money—billions of pounds—radically to improve the London underground? With a bit of tunnelling, a little imagination and a few improvements to access, the London underground could be transformed into an underground for the 21st century. We are ignoring that option in favour of Crossrail, because Crossrail is a shiny new toy.
	I shall not labour my concerns about the regulatory framework, but I share the worries expressed by other hon. Members. The Department for Transport has consistently acknowledged that this is a kitchen-sink Bill, but it claims that the situation is all right because the extensive powers, which it may not need, reassure the funders. However, I know that if Ministers are given powers, they will use them. I do not think that the Secretary of State currently intends to use those powers, but when push comes to shove, he will be tempted. Ministers should not be given dangerous toys unless they really need them.
	We have not examined the sensible alternatives to Crossrail, which has mesmerised people. I have not dismissed Superlink, which is a better scheme than Crossrail. It would use a similar tunnel under central London, but, unlike Crossrail, it would link directly to regional centres and airports across the south-east, including Heathrow and Stansted, which would relieve pressure elsewhere. Superlink would attract four times as many passengers as Crossrail, which would halve the cost to the taxpayer per passenger. Although Superlink is a bit more expensive than Crossrail, it is fundable in a way in which Crossrail is probably not.
	Superlink is compatible with the core section of Crossrail between Canary Wharf and Paddington, and it includes vital but small modifications at each end of that section to enable the major investment to deliver its full potential. Crossrail will not provide transport links to serve the areas of projected housing growth in the south-east and to relieve road traffic, particularly in the Thames Gateway. If Crossrail proceeds, it will pre-empt such infrastructure improvements.
	Crossrail is of little benefit to constituencies on the fringes of London or in the area around it, while Superlink would serve all of those areas. By taking travellers directly to their central London destinations, Superlink would more effectively relieve congestion on the London underground and free up key national rail routes.
	Interestingly, Superlink's analysis of congestion benefits was not challenged in the Cross London Rail Links analysis of Superlink. A railway that would solve the problems of Milton Keynes and Cambridge and address the east-west issues is a much more attractive option than Crossrail.
	I remain unconvinced that the instruction motion will allow the Select Committee to hear well-founded criticism of the Crossrail scheme or properly to evaluate alternative options. This evening, the House must reflect on this basic question: why spend so much money, largely at taxpayers' expense, building a railway from Maidenhead to Shenfield, when, with just a little more thought and a little more expense, we could secure a transport network that addresses the real problems of London and the south-east and that costs the taxpayer less? Unless the Minister can explain why the Select Committee cannot examine the alternatives, why it cannot accept the official Opposition's instruction—for that matter, why can it not accept my instruction, which has not been selected?—and why the instruction is so flawed, I will seek to divide the House on this well-meaning but deeply flawed Bill.

Andrew Slaughter: I may be old-fashioned, but I thought that the links to the national rail network were the London terminals of Paddington and Liverpool Street, which seem to do a perfectly good job. The principal job of Crossrail is to provide much-needed relief to central London and to the western and eastern arms; that is why it has received a warm welcome from business, local government, trade unions and transport groups. Even those who intend to petition against parts of the Bill generally preface their objections with an endorsement of the scheme. My constituents largely fall into that category by giving it a clear but not unqualified welcome. I shall come on to the objections in a moment.
	The benefits to the national and London economy, to employment and, in particular, to the transport network were set out in the Secretary of State's speech, and I do not intend to repeat them. The good sense of having an east-west through route connecting to national rail services and the tube is so apparent that it has been advocated for some 50 years. The commercial and operational benefits are complemented by the relief that it will bring to tube lines already operating at capacity.
	The specific local benefits to my constituency are significant. Ealing Broadway will be the principal interchange station on the west arm of the route. The station itself will benefit from much-needed reconstruction. Commuters will experience improved services and journey times to many destinations, as well as the new routes that will be opened up to the centre of London. Acton main line station will be rebuilt and the number of trains increased from two to four per hour, reversing the cut in services made last year. The facilities at all stations along the line will be improved and the stations extended to accommodate longer trains. That is all good news for rail users in the western part of my constituency.
	However, there are three concerns about the project as currently set out. First, there is a belief that the good news in the Bill could be better. Twenty-four trains will run through the central tunnel at peak times. In the east, those will continue on one or other of the Shenfield or Abbey Wood branch lines; in the west, 14 trains will be turned round at Paddington. The central conceit of Crossrail is to make a once-in-a-generation improvement in the cross-London rail network by linking up the existing extensive but disparate web of overground and underground lines. However, no attempt has been made to interchange with the West London line at Shepherds Bush or the North London line at Acton.It is difficult to tell whether the service to Heathrow from local stations will improve. BAA, which has just introduced the Heathrow Connect service, says that it will not. It is an issue not only of timetabling but of fares. If the premium fares that are currently charged for travelling even a few miles by rail to Heathrow are to continue, many non-business users are likely to boycott the service.
	The second caveat, and the basis of a groundswell of local opposition to Crossrail, is the effect that it will have on the local environment, particularly the loss of a substantial area of open space comprising allotments, school playing fields and natural habitat for a number of protected species. The London borough of Ealing and numerous local organisations from the Acton area will, with my support, petition the Select Committee on those issues. The significance of losing irreplaceable open space in inner- city areas cannot be overestimated. In this case, the sites are well used and have been for several generations. They are, admittedly, part of the original Great Western estate and stand on railway land, but so does much of the residential property and other amenities in that part of Acton. The specific areas of land marked out for compulsory purchase include a sizeable part of the playing field and nature reserve of West Acton primary school and the whole Noel road allotments site.
	The teachers and pupils of the school and the residents who till the allotments are not naive, and I doubt that they believe that even armed with rakes and hockey sticks they could stop a £10 billion railroad crossing their land. However, it transpires that the land grab in Acton is wholly unnecessary, as alternative brownfield sites along that part of the route could be substituted. The same applies at Ealing Broadway, where it is proposed to take over Haven green—a protected area of green space in Ealing town centre—instead of using a nearby car park for storage and construction works. I presume that that can only be for reasons of cost and convenience to the contractor. Some six years ago, similar proposals to take over those greenfield sites were turned down at the planning stage because alternative brownfield sites were available, and it remains the view of the local authority that those sites are there. Of course, the powers given by the Bill will subsume such local planning powers. Moreover, as the history of the site suggests, the proposed extensive works at Acton yard would envelop the community open space, yet they are not germane to the Crossrail scheme itself but part of separate development proposals for the freight yard. Local residents fear that were the Bill to be passed but Crossrail to be abandoned, the compulsory purchase powers given by the Bill might be used to advance other interests. That lose-lose option would mean no playing fields, but no new rail service either.
	That example illustrates my third and final reservation about the Bill. Are the powers to take over existing interests, in particular the compulsory purchase of landholdings of existing users, necessary to fulfil the requirements of the Crossrail scheme? Many substantial interests with a locus in my constituency will petition on these points, including BAA, EWS Railway and Cory Environmental. I do not intend to recite the objections in detail here, as other hon. Members have mentioned them, but the general point is well made. It cannot be right for any greater powers to be taken by the Secretary of State with a view to passing them to the nominated undertaker than are necessary for the construction and operation of the Crossrail route, or for there to be no requirement to consider and negotiate the rights of existing users. If that dictum applies to other major players on the Great Western lines, it should also apply to neighbouring communities.
	It is always easier in such debates to dwell on the points of difference than on the layers of agreement. I conclude by repeating that the Bill will find general and enthusiastic support in my constituency, not least because it is an essential addition to the London rail network.

Eric Pickles: There is some merit in that suggestion, but the point made by the hon. Member for Dagenham about the southern route, which would move it more naturally into the Thames Gateway, also had merit. Rather than wasting money extending the line from Stratford up to Shenfield, why not release that money and place Crossrail where there will be significant growth?
	Now that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire and I are in agreement, I shall disagree violently with him on Superlink. I had hoped that my instruction to the Committee would not allow the flight of fancy represented by Superlink to distract the Committee. My constituents are not impressed by Superlink's desire to smash two new railway lines through the gently undulating Essex countryside. I hope that my hon. Friend will give the same consideration to that beautiful countryside that he gives to Brunel's marvellous bridges. Those two new lines would disturb the villages of Lambourne and Abridge to the west, and Navestock, Blackmore, Hook End, Swallows Cross and Mountnessing in the east.
	Perhaps I should declare an interest. Although Superlink tells me that my property will not be affected, I have to say that a close examination of that enormous red line on its plans seems to reveal that Superlink will go right through Mrs. Pickles' and my kitchen door, so hon. Members will understand why I am not exactly happy with the idea. What Superlink airily dismisses as open field is my constituents' precious green belt. My constituents are even less impressed by Superlink's patrician refusal to publish an exact route. Any organisation that shows such disdain for the public forfeits the right to be taken seriously.
	The Secretary of State made great play of the necessity for private rights to be considered by the Select Committee. There are a number of problems with the environmental impact assessment, which has, perhaps inadvertently, misled some of my constituents. I want to make one narrow point on this issue, and I would like one of my constituents to speak for the rest. My constituent, Mr. Cloke lives at 15 Herington Grove, and although his house is shown as being likely to be affected by significant adverse noise impact, it does not qualify for noise insulation. Nos. 11 and 17 Herington Grove do qualify, however. No. 17 is interesting because it is not a building but part of the garden of No. 15, which does not qualify.
	When my constituent contacted Crossrail's helpdesk, he was told
	"that the tables set out in the Environmental Statement were samples and not representative of whether houses will or will not be affected, which will only be known and assessed once construction work commences. This apparently was to comply with Parliamentary requirements for the document to be reduced in size".
	To make the assessment only when construction commences would be contrary to the noise and vibration mitigation scheme. It also seems completely pointless. Once the construction has started, the noise, disruption and vibration will also have started. Mr. Cloke rightly asks:
	"How can this be done in a realistic timeframe to alleviate and mitigate the noise from the construction?"
	I would ask the Select Committee, when it is considering the private rights, to look at this aspect of the scheme as a matter of urgency. A number of my constituents have thumbed their way through the environmental report and decided either that they have nothing to worry about or that they have something to worry about. Either way, however, this is just an indicative scheme, and that is not a sensible path for either the House or Crossrail to pursue.

Andrew Slaughter: I did not think that the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) mentioned North Pole. I believe that he mentioned a depot near Paddington. North Pole is relatively near Paddington, but is actually at Shepherd's Bush. If only from my earlier intervention, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) must know that Crossrail considered it as an option and rejected it, partly because it is in west London rather than east London and therefore logistically inappropriate and partly because there may be other plans for the North Pole depot. He cannot hang his argument on that.

Andrew Rosindell: There may be other plans and Crossrail may have considered them, but it has not pursued that option. What I am asking today is for the Minister to revive that option and look further into the details. A decision has been taken, but not a fair decision, so other alternatives need to be considered. Will the Minister assure my constituents that he will investigate why this option has been decided and ensure that the North Pole alternative is given serious and urgent consideration?
	Other effects of the work in Romford include the extension of an underpass widely used by residents ranging from children to the elderly. It will be extended from 43 to 75 m. Associated works at Romford station will cause considerable disruption with yet more work sites and more construction vehicles. The affected residents are effectively stuck in the area, because once Crossrail reaches planning stages and starts showing up a negative on searches, residents will be unable to sell their homes, causing blight to many home owners in my constituency. I feel that that is totally unfair to my constituents.
	I turn now to the effects of Crossrail in the Gidea park area of my constituency, where railway sidings and an access route are being proposed. The residents of Cambridge avenue, Amery gardens and the surrounding area will have imposed on them a large area for the storage of Crossrail trains—yet more disturbance, noise and pollution. Gidea park is another quiet residential area and although the Liverpool Street line runs through the community, using the land at the rear of residential properties for that particular purpose is an entirely new development, to which most local people are completely opposed. There is also the access route for vehicles proposed via the Southend arterial road, where lorries will thunder past residential properties and around the sides of people's homes, causing no end of disturbance. As the local MP, I speak on behalf of all local residents from the area who feel that this plan is totally and utterly unacceptable.
	It has also become increasingly apparent that affected residents in the area will have little to gain from the development or from the Crossrail service itself. As such, I believe that connecting the Great Eastern Shenfield line into the Crossrail scheme could prove a serious mistake—a view shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar. From what I can see, the £1.5 billion that it will cost far outweighs the potential benefits to passengers from Romford. There will be only a slight increase in capacity and, by the time that the whole scheme is commissioned, it will have been absorbed by the growth of towns along the eastern route. There is no real evidence that journey times for passengers on this branch will decrease substantially. Most commuters from Romford walk from Liverpool Street station to jobs in the City and there is also a good interchange at Stratford on to the Central line. Since the Crossrail scheme was revived by the central London rail study, the Jubilee line has been constructed, allowing passengers to travel directly to Canary Wharf and the west end, reducing the congestion on the Central line.

Andrew Rosindell: I have great sympathy with my hon. Friend's point. We all want progress and greater access to travel, but there are many different ways of doing it. I am increasingly of the view that the important thing to focus on is smaller developments—localised, but clearly focused on what will be achieved. Huge developments may not necessarily improve the situation but most certainly have a big impact on the environment. The debate will become more detailed and complex as time goes on.
	Crossrail has told Romford residents at meetings held by the Crossrail action group that they will be able to board direct trains to Heathrow airport. However, in answer to another of my written questions, the Minister confirmed that all trains to Heathrow will, in fact, start from Abbey Wood with no direct service from Shenfield. We have also learned that Crossrail trains are unlikely to run to Heathrow's new terminal 5 because of capacity conflicts. It appears that passengers from the Shenfield branch will need to change trains to get to Heathrow and then change again if they want to use flights from terminal 5. The case for incorporating the Shenfield line into the Crossrail scheme seems to depend on the assumption that it will, in turn, release capacity for more services from Stansted airport into Liverpool Street station. Yet rail industry experts have raised serious questions about whether Crossrail's operating strategies will actually work. If they are right, Crossrail's plans imply the utter waste of £1.5 billion, with the so-called investment going into making public transport worse.

Mark Field: I am sure that the whole debate has been a delight for every last train spotter. It seems that almost every railway siding from Essex to Worcestershire has been mentioned; in particular, we have had a tour d'horizon of Romford, courtesy of my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) who went into great detail in a passionate defence of the rights and interests of his constituents.
	When, or perhaps if, Crossrail is built, our capital city—one of the great global cities—will have the beginnings of a railway system fit for the 21st century. Why then have the Government seen fit to impose a procedure more suited to the 19th century in proposing this hybrid Bill? What of democratic accountability, and consultation with the countless residents whose daily lives will be blighted and affected? We have heard about that from several contributors to the debate. Why is the ultimate decision about whether the project is funded, and thus can proceed, left to two men, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Transport, who do not represent anyone on transport issues in this House? It is a devolved matter for their constituents in Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath and in Edinburgh, South-West.
	There is no doubt that London desperately needs proper investment in its infrastructure, because if London fails economically, the whole of the United Kingdom fails with it. Jobs, at least those outside the public sector, that fly from our capital city usually leave our shores entirely. Any Government action that diminishes the relative commercial importance of London is unlikely to benefit Glasgow, Leeds, Manchester or Birmingham; instead, it will be European or increasingly south-east Asian cities that will reap the benefits. It is in that context that we must ensure that investment in the transport infrastructure of our capital city is fit for purpose in an innovative, rapidly evolving world of commerce.
	Crossrail is a plan that will integrate the mainline railways to the east and west of London, through the construction of two tunnels, directly beneath the centre of London, from Paddington to Liverpool Street. As the Secretary of State said in his opening comments, the project was agreed by the Government as long ago as 1990 but the necessary private Bill failed to get through the House of Commons four years later. Finally, on grounds of cost as much as anything else, the Conservative Government pulled the plug on that scheme in 1996. Many Members who have spoken in the debate may not be entirely aware that the proposal goes back as far as 1948, so surely few would dispute the fact that Crossrail is an idea whose time has genuinely come.
	There are, however, some substantial issues that need to be properly addressed even on Second Reading. Later, I shall touch on some constituency issues; rightly, as constituency Members, we have particular concerns and they have been mentioned by all the Members who have made contributions so far. None the less there are some more fundamental issues, many of which concern the proposed funding for the entire project and the manner in which the promoters of the Bill, Cross London Rail Links Ltd.—a joint venture company formed by the Strategic Rail Authority and Transport for London—have gone about their public consultation obligations. I accept that many such issues will be discussed at far greater length in the protracted formal Committee stage, assuming that the Bill gets that far.
	I am the Member of Parliament whose constituency is most obviously directly affected by the proposal, which is not to demean in any way the contributions made elsewhere. However, as the central part of Crossrail goes right through my constituency from Liverpool Street in the City of London to Paddington station, I wanted to list some of the concerns on the record in advance of petitions by residents associations, local businesses and individual members of the public. The funding of infrastructure projects here in our capital city has historically been highly contentious. Sadly, if anyone believed that adding a new layer of devolved government, as this Labour Government did in creating the Mayor and the Greater London assembly only five years ago, would make things easier, they were sadly mistaken.

Mark Field: I thank my hon. Friend for that observation. I know that he is a serving councillor in the London borough of Wandsworth, so I expect he sees both sides of that argument, from the suburbs and from central London. I think he is absolutely right.
	It is clear that the financing of this project remains entirely up in the air. I think we are the first to accept that businesses are willing, and have shown themselves willing, to make a contribution, but equally they want to see the colour of the Government's money. They want an idea of the likely funding structure. My greatest worry is that although we could spend months, perhaps years, talking about Crossrail, unless there is a fairly clear idea of the source of the financing, all that discussion will come to naught. It would be somewhat intellectually dishonest for any Government to advance such a scheme without having a strong idea about where the finance will come from. Without such clarity, the great worry is that many years could be spent in discussions, with the result that many lives and many properties and businesses could be blighted in the manner described by a number of Members across the House.
	There is little doubt that the creation of Transport for London under the direct responsibility of the Mayor of London has at least provided a structure for transport decision making here in the capital, but the terms of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 were couched in such a way as to ensure that financial control remained firmly in the hands of central Government. I do not believe that can truly be a sensible way to proceed, although I accept that Crossrail has an importance that goes beyond the capital city. In view of Mayor Livingstone's record of financial profligacy, such control of finances might generate a collective sigh of relief from many London council tax payers who have already seen a whopping 105 per cent. increase in the mayoral precept on the London council tax over the last five years. Indeed, the prospect of Mayor Livingstone being issued a blank cheque for Crossrail is enough to make anyone shudder.
	Nevertheless, the stark financial reality is that all too often this Labour Government have regarded London as a convenient cash cow. The creaking London infrastructure, especially but not exclusively that of transport, treats residents and wealth-creating businesses alike with some disdain. Most independent commentators would estimate that every year, some £12 billion of public funds is transferred from the capital to the rest of the UK and some £1.5 billion of that is from business rates alone. There is little doubt that this is beginning to have an electoral effect, and the Government should beware.
	Issues of quality of life and the cost of living were increasingly important for my party in the capital during the general election campaign, and the swing from the Labour party to the Conservatives in London was greater than in any other region of the United Kingdom. I am proud that I have four hon. Friends—my hon. Friends the Members for Croydon, Central (Mr. Pelling), for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes), for Putney (Justine Greening) and for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond)—in seats that would have remained in Labour hands had there been only an average national swing. On the grounds of electoral self-interest alone, I hope that the Government are now listening to the voice of London. I appreciate that the trend that I have articulated has been echoed by an increasingly worried cohort of London Labour Back Benchers.
	We now seek an investment commitment to Crossrail at the earliest opportunity, although I accept that there is no clear pathway to its funding. I am the first to admit that it is a complicated situation. No one is suddenly going to produce £10 billion, £15 billion or £20 billion—I think we all realise that by the time Crossrail is built the cost is likely to be at the higher end of that range—but over the past year the Mayor has been given what he and his new friends in government have euphemistically called "prudential borrowing powers" to complete the east London link, which is of course a crucial part of our Olympic 2012 successful bid, and therefore the programme for the future. In essence, that is a financial sleight of hand because the Mayor is allowed to borrow some £2.9 billion from future council tax receipts to complete the east London link. Despite the national importance of that transport project, the money will still come from London's local taxpayers. Apparently, that will be the case for the whole Crossrail scheme.
	In their desperation, London's largest businesses have tried to engage with the Government and offer some money on the table. As the Minister will be aware, the current proposal is for an additional 3 per cent. surcharge on the business rate over 50 years or, indeed, for some added-value capture scheme that reflects the projected long-term increase in property values as a result of the infrastructure being created. That is understandable—everyone can support it in principle—but the difficult is, of course, how that bit of any increase in the value of a property is calculated. Understandably, business has been reluctant to declare its hand fully, without a firm commitment in advance from the Government to put up the bulk of the project's costs. I hope that the Minister will give at least some indication today about where he envisages some of the project's funding will come from.
	Inevitably, when the works start, there will be an immense amount of disruption to many London residents and businesses. As I mentioned in an earlier contribution, given the disruption in central London alone, I personally believe that it is very unlikely that we can go through the whole process of getting the Bill on to the statute book in enough time for work to begin before the Olympics. Nothing would be more disruptive than two or three years' upheaval in central London in the midst of the Olympics. In all honesty, I suspect that the Government already recognise that and therefore the timetable is being postponed to the middle of the next decade.
	I hope that my hon. Friends from other parts of the capital and beyond will forgive me if I focus my comments on my constituency, which has some important aspects to mention. I am assured that, although some of my constituents oppose Crossrail as a matter of principle, others, even those who face disruption in their lives, recognise many of its overall benefits. However, they are worried that, without a proper funding commitment and therefore a realistic timetable for how quickly work will commence and finish, their properties will be blighted. That has not been made any easier by the fact that the erstwhile chief executive of Crossrail, Norman Haste, quit it mid-May, before the necessary parliamentary approval process commenced. To a large extent, the Government had made his job increasingly impossible by dragging their feet on the funding required to make the whole Crossrail project viable.
	It is now of key importance that a full public consultation exercise takes place on Crossrail's precise route in central London. The initial proposal suggested three possible routes. I am alarmed by the current proposal for a route just south of Oxford street because it is certain to cause massive disruption to the residential population of Mayfair, as well as damage to a large number of listed buildings and other residential properties. Some Members—I say this perhaps for the benefit of Labour Members—may assume that Mayfair is somehow full of hugely wealthy investment bankers who live in large, multi-million pound houses. Nothing is further from the truth: the biggest number of complaints have come from two very large Peabody Trust buildings: one off Binney street and the other in Brown Hart Gardens in Mayfair. Indeed, the great bulk of the population of north Mayfair is made up of people who live in social housing, many of whom have done so for decades and their families may have done so for several generations.
	My great concern is that, in reality, they have no choice about where they live. The same applies with many of the licensing changes that are taking place. People who live in Soho, Covent Garden or Mayfair who are well off enough can decide to move if they find that the disruption is too bad, but we always forget that a significant number of people, particularly in central London, live in social housing. They have absolutely no choice about where they live. They are the most vulnerable people in our society, and they need everyone—not just hon. Members, but those in the city council, the Greater London assembly and, indeed, a range of non-governmental bodies—to stand up for their interests. I am sure that my constituency neighbour, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck), as a former Westminster city councillor, would entirely endorse what I have had to say.
	If we are to minimise the complications caused by both compulsory purchase and possible structural damage, it is of key importance to give serious consideration to other routes, especially the northern interchange route. I accept that the proper place for such consideration is not the Floor of the House because that will take place in Committee. However, it is worth at least talking about the matter in limited detail at this stage so that I can put it on record.
	The housing association tenants in Mayfair often have no choice about where they live, as I have said, but they face the risk of severe disruption to their community. In Gilbert street in Mayfair, for example, the 1930s educational facility will be torn down to make way for a terminus to support the Crossrail link. The apartment blocks in the area will be subjected to a minimum of six years' building work—several hon. Members have cited that time scale. Trucks will go in for at least 12 hours a day to dispose of rubble and a great deal of underground drilling with take place day and night. A shaft measuring 30 ft wide and 25 ft deep will be sunk to expel all the stale air. The residents feel that they have been neither properly informed, nor consulted. The building work will seriously disrupt the quality of life for countless local people, yet many residents are already in poor health, with some elderly and others similarly vulnerable.

Clive Efford: I am delighted to have this opportunity to speak in this debate, because I want to speak up for south-east London, which has long been forgotten in terms of transport infrastructure. As I have said on many occasions, we do not have direct access to the London underground. Much investment across London goes into the underground and much of the debate about London's transport is concerned with it. However, many parts of London are not served by it and we rely heavily on Network SouthEast and, where that fails, the only alternative for travel from my constituency to central London is the car. We also have over-congested roads.
	Crossrail is essential to the future of London's transport network. If London is ever to make a significant attempt to meet the future needs of its commuters, the scheme is essential. However, it must be properly planned and the wider benefits for the entire community must be taken into account, not just for those in the Thames gateway or further along the Thames corridor. It has long been the experience of people from my constituency that they look on as developments take place along the riverfront. Such developments are welcome, but the planning for those schemes includes little thought about how the wider community can link into those schemes and benefit from them. London has been dogged for too long by such second-rate planning, with too often the cheapest option taken and the wider benefits unconsidered.
	The population of London is projected to grow by 800,000 by 2016, and jobs in London will increase by 600,000 by that time. Along with that growth will come the demand for extra capacity on our transport network. It is estimated that Crossrail will provide some 40 per cent. of the extra capacity that London will need. It will more than double capacity through the central London corridor that is currently provided by the London underground and it will reduce journey times by up to 40 per cent. However, that does not mean that Crossrail should go ahead regardless of the wider concerns of many parts of London.
	Most of the jobs that will be created over the next 10 or more years will be in the Thames gateway area, the Isle of Dogs, the City, the west end and around Heathrow. Crossrail will be vital for people who want to access these areas. Most of my constituents currently travel towards central London. In the past, London had a transport network that was rather like spokes of a wheel. People have been living in suburbs and have travelled in on rail networks. If they were lucky enough to live near the tube or "on the tube", they travelled by that means into central London. The development of the Thames Gateway and east London will change that fundamentally. I am already being approached by people who want to work on the reconstruction that is taking place in the Thames Gateway area. They want access to the Thames Gateway for training so that they can have the opportunity of taking the jobs that will be available.
	The future travel patterns of people from my part of London will change completely as development gathers pace. The need to travel north across the river and possibly go east, rather than west into central London, will become more common. Crossrail needs to recognise the change that will take place.
	The cost of introducing a station along the Crossrail route after it has been built would be extremely costly. That is why I want to draw attention to the amendment that was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), although it was not selected. He asks in that amendment for a railway station at Woolwich to accommodate the future needs of people from south-east London who will need to have access to the Thames corridor and the Thames Gateway area, to travel to the wider areas to which Crossrail will offer connections. We need a station at Woolwich.
	Woolwich is in a strategic position in south-east London, where it could become a transport hub for that area. It makes no sense to bypass a strategic centre. It would make a mockery of the transport policies that have been published over many years, which are full of well-meaning statements about integrated transport, if we did not take the opportunity to make Woolwich a transport hub. We have the opportunity for a major infrastructure development to do just that, to become an integrated transport hub for an area of London that for too long has been deprived.
	The proposals are for Crossrail trains to travel past Woolwich, the first stop south of the river being Abbey Wood. I welcome the fact that there is to be a station at Abbey Wood. However, that cannot be considered to be a strategic location for a major station and a major development such as Crossrail. Woolwich is bypassed because it is cheaper to do so. Such second-rate planning has dogged us for too long.
	Woolwich is served by 18 bus routes, plus two night buses. The docklands light railway will arrive in Woolwich in 2008–09. The Royal Arsenal is being rebuilt. It is already home to thousands of people who live in the new buildings, and there are thousands more to come.
	For too long the needs of south-east London have been overlooked. Twelve of London's most socially deprived wards are in the area around Woolwich. The fact that the east Thames corridor has been overlooked for too long is recognised in the Thames Gateway development programme. We cannot overlook the level of deprivation that exists south of the river in areas such as the one that I represent. If my constituents cannot access Crossrail, they will suffer enormously as developments along the Thames Gateway take place. I have already mentioned that we do not have direct access to the London underground system. We also face the problem of a lack of planning for surface transport. For example, we have seen no major developments in bus networks.
	Last week, I spoke to a group of young people who were hanging around in my constituency and asked them what they did with their time. Our local cinema is close to North Greenwich station, which is in the north of my borough. I asked, Do you ever go down to the cinema? Do you ever make your way down to the new facility there?" They said, "It is too far. The bus takes too long." We have had the Jubilee line in my borough for more than five years, but there is no direct bus link. If those young people wanted to use our local bus network to travel to the cinema close to North Greenwich station, it would take two hours out of their day. No young person will consider that. A commuter travelling to London to work will not consider that transport as an option, so a heavy burden is placed on the south-east rail network, on which there is too much reliance. It is frequently overcrowded and that forces people on to our roads. Larger schemes such as Crossrail must meet the wider needs of existing communities as well as communities that will be developed along the Thames Gateway. Buses are not regarded as an alternative for travelling into central London, so access to Crossrail is essential if we are to provide a decent transport network for people in south-east London.
	The Thames Gateway is one the biggest regeneration areas in Europe. A total of 200,000 homes will be built there, and there is capacity to build 30,000 more homes than are envisaged in the Government's housing strategy. Some 150,000 jobs will be developed in the area. Inevitably, people focus on the Thames Gateway when they talk about Crossrail, but we must look at the wider community. According to the Thames Gateway partnerships, development will benefit south-east London, but that depends on how we define south-east London. History teaches us that if we do not pay attention to problems at the outset it is expensive to put them right after the development is complete. The docklands, for instance, were developed before the docklands light railway was built. The Jubilee line was built through the docklands much later. The lack of public transport infrastructure proved to be a major fault in the development of the royal docks and it was some time before people could experience the wider benefits of the area.
	I can only demonstrate what we are planning to do with Crossrail by making a comparison with the opening of the Hammersmith and City line. Imagine the trains on that route failing to stop at Hammersmith broadway and the line ending at Ravenscourt Park. Such a proposal would be met with derision. Similarly, if trains on the Jubilee line did not stop at Canary Wharf, people would wonder about the benefits of such a transport link for the communities it was intended to serve. The failure of Crossrail trains to stop at Woolwich will have a similar effect on south-east London. The area has been a poor relation of public transport development in south-east London for far too long, and we will not countenance a failure to develop Crossrail there.
	Woolwich is not included in the proposals because of cost—it is not because of a lack of demand. Crossrail's own briefing says:
	"Crossrail will establish a brand new network of services linking areas across London and beyond. This will allow existing suburban rail services to run through London, reducing overcrowding on Underground lines and reducing congestion at a number of busy national rail stations."
	We must make that statement come true. We cannot allow the development of Crossrail to bypass people in south-east London. I sincerely hope that the Select Committee will take on board the arguments in favour of a station at Woolwich on the Crossrail line, and that the Bill will be amended accordingly.

Derek Twigg: As I said when I was referring to the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, we do not think that passenger numbers would justify a new station, as there are alternatives; nor would the cost, due to the depth at which the tunnel would have to be built. However, I reassure my hon. Friend that, although we do not think that a case has been made, we shall look at the situation again, but I can give no guarantees at this stage.

Derek Twigg: No, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have made the position very clear. [Hon. Members: "No you have not."] I am not going to go over the ground again. In terms of the transport benefits, Crossrail will enable better access to the capital for the hundreds of thousands of workers who commute into London every day and provide strategic interchanges for local, national and international business and leisure activities. I commend the Bill to the House.

Queen's recommendation having been signified—
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52 (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Crossrail Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
	(a) any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of the Act, and
	(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment.— [Mr. Coaker.]
	Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52 (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Crossrail Bill, it is expedient to authorise the making of provision about income tax, corporation tax, capital gains tax, stamp duty, stamp duty land tax and stamp duty reserve tax.—[Mr. Coaker.]
	Question agreed to.

That Adam Afriyie, Mr Robert Flello, Dr Ian Gibson, Dr Evan Harris, Dr Brian Iddon, Margaret Moran, Mr Brooks Newmark, Anne Snelgrove, Bob Spink, Dr Desmond Turner and Mr Phil Willis be members of the Science and Technology Committee.—[Rosemary McKenna on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Alison Seabeck: I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise an issue that seriously concerns many of my constituents, the police and other organisations. The debate is particularly relevant as we approach the school summer holidays.
	What are micro bikes or mini motos? They are small—the diameter of the tyres is typically between 4 and 6 in. They have two-stroke engines, which means that they are capable of speeds up to 35 mph, although fitting a supercharger allows speeds up to 40 mph. That is much faster than, for example, the speed limit in home zones, which is 20 mph. They can be bought from shops, second hand or on the internet.
	Micro bikes can be used on the road if the driver has the proper equipment and if they are taxed, insured and MOT-ed. I sought clarification, because a number of local people were unclear about that point, and the Department for Transport wrote to me on 15 June:
	"It has always been our opinion that vehicles powered by a motor (whether combustion or electric) are mechanically propelled and therefore are defined as motor vehicles . . . This means that, in our opinion, to be used on the road mini motorcycles . . . would be required to meet all the attendant requirements under the Road Traffic Act 1988, such as compliance with stringent construction regulations, registration, road tax, insurance and MOT testing. The rider would be required to hold an appropriate driving licence"—
	we will return to that point—
	"and wear a suitable motorcycle helmet."
	That is not happening in Plymouth.
	When parents buy those bikes for their children, I am sure that most of them intend the bikes to be used legally, but unfortunately that is not the case. A number of parents think that the bikes are toys, but they are toys capable of 40 mph. How are the bikes marketed? In Plymouth, people tell me that retailers are responsible and provide appropriate advice when they sell those machines. At last weekend's successful Plymouth motor show, I overheard a vendor tell a potential customer that the bikes should not be used on the roads, but that advice is either not being listened to or simply being ignored.
	I saw the danger posed by those bikes when I visited a park in Barne Barton in my constituency with Councillor Williams and Councillor Blackburn. It was a lovely sunny April day and the park was full of toddlers, when two mini bikes suddenly raced down the hill and through the park. They were piloted by a 10-year-old and a 14-year-old, who were completely oblivious to the fact that two-year-olds and three-year-olds have no sense of danger and would not leap out of their paths. Parents frantically pulled away their children as the bikes scooted through the park, out of the park, along a public road and back to the top of the park, where two new riders took over and did exactly the same thing.
	The police were called and attended very quickly, but as soon as they arrived, the motor cyclists disappeared. One of the police officers, who was very experienced, said that he is frustrated that he cannot chase those youngsters on to the public road for obvious safety reasons—the bikes are very small and can barely be seen above a car bonnet, so the danger is all too apparent. To their credit, the police returned to the park later in the day and apprehended one of the bike users, which was a positive outcome.
	The problem is extremely widespread, and I gather from colleagues that they have similar problems. In Ernesettle, I saw a father and son on public land. The son, who was six or seven years old, was admittedly fully kitted out with helmet and leathers and riding on the grass, but the father had none of those things—he had bare legs, nothing on his head, and a bike without a registration plate, and was on the public road riding alongside the child. They left as I approached.
	The problem gets worse in woodland areas such as Whitleigh and Ham woods, where it starts to approach serious antisocial behaviour whereby local residents are being harassed and threatened by people using these small bikes. I shall read from a letter that was sent to me by someone who lives in the Whitleigh woods area and wrote anonymously because they were afraid of reprisals. They say:
	"There is no pleasure in walking through the woods or sitting or working in the garden anymore. In fact I dread any nice weather. To invite friends round for a barbecue is totally out of the question as the motorcyclists can descend at any time and I get so frustrated and angry that there is no point in arranging anything."
	The writer goes on:
	"I have tried to speak to these youngsters to appeal to their good nature but they will not even speak to me but race off".
	That person says that their life is being made an absolute misery. Sadly, that letter is not unique—I have had letters, phone calls and petitions on the same subject.
	What should be done? There are several areas of possible action, and perhaps information that could be beefed up, and I should like the Minister to consider them. I admit that some may require interdepartmental discussions. First, although it is probably too late now, there should be an information campaign in schools, perhaps with posters. In areas where there are particular problems, letters should go home to parents explaining exactly who can use these bikes, how they should be used, and where they can be used legally, as well as the penalties for breaking the law, which can be quite severe.
	Secondly, when the law is broken and the culprit is caught and convicted, of course the penalty should be paid. However, the courts need to be clear about the status of these bikes. Anecdotally, there are comments that some magistrates see them as being in a different category from full-size bikes, yet they are just as dangerous and potentially lethal. The police already have powers to confiscate them, and there is a view locally that if they have been used illegally, they should not only be confiscated but crushed and taken out of the market so that the young people who are buying them might begin to focus on just how serious offence they may have committed.

Paul Goggins: The question generally does not arise, for the reasons that I have given. It is clear, however, that when the vehicles are used illegally they can be impounded. The release fee has to be paid, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport suggested earlier, if it is not paid, the vehicle can be crushed.
	When one of these vehicles is ridden on the pavement, the police can treat that as an offence under the Highways Act 1835. The maximum penalty is £500. When the rider is a child, the police may choose instead to warn him and advise his parents as necessary. The police also have powers of arrest when there are reasonable grounds for believing that such action is necessary to prevent the rider of the mini moto, or motor cyclist, from causing physical injury to himself or to any other person.
	When someone commits a driving offence but does not hold a current driving licence, for example by virtue of his or her age, a court can still order the endorsement of the offender's licence. The offender may not have a licence, but when he or she applies for one, the endorsement will automatically feature on it.
	Local authorities also have powers to manage such problems. They can make byelaws under section 235 of the Local Government Act 1972, prohibiting the use of mini motos, or any other vehicle for that matter, in particular areas. While byelaws cannot duplicate general legislation, they can be used to prohibit the use of mini motos in shopping-centre car parks, pedestrianised areas and the like. Furthermore, local authorities are required under section 79 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to take reasonable steps to check their areas periodically for existing and potential statutory nuisances. My hon. Friend mentioned the noise made by some vehicles. If they are causing excessive noise, a local authority can serve a noise abatement notice and can seize the vehicle that is causing the nuisance. If a person uses mini motos repeatedly and causes excessive nuisance in the community, the local authority can apply for an antisocial behaviour order to prohibit him or her from using them.
	I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that last week, in response to the increase in problems associated with mini moto misuse, officials from the antisocial behaviour unit at the Home Office held an action day on the issue. It was attended by more than 100 staff from all over the country, bringing together local authorities, police and others to share ideas and good practice. The purpose was to encourage staff to take action against the misuse of mini motos, and attention was drawn to a number of specific interventions.
	It is important for us to do all that we can to raise awareness of the issues, as my hon. Friend has been able to do this evening. She made some very sensible suggestions about the use of leaflets, campaigning materials and information that can heighten awareness among members of the public who may not appreciate the dangers and the legal position. I want to encourage local authorities to work with trading standards authorities, and to ensure that local retailers are acting responsibly. That may involve the production of appropriate leaflets that retailers can distribute when vehicles are sold.
	It is worth engaging the support of local petrol stations, especially in areas where misuse is recognised as a problem, to ensure that petrol is not sold to anyone under 16. If under-age sales are suspected, trading standards authorities can carry out test purchasing, which may result in the removal of a licence to sell petrol. Local authorities and police can also use their reporting systems to gather intelligence if they have antisocial behaviour hotlines, or information provided through neighbourhood and community wardens. That information can be used to target problem areas with high-visibility patrols or leaflet drops.
	Local authorities can also help to discourage misuse by making physical improvements to public areas. My hon. Friend suggested designating certain areas safe for the use of mini motos, and I think that that would be a good idea.
	There is a great deal of work going on. If more action days are required, the Home Office will be happy to sponsor them, but I think my hon. Friend has done a service to the House and her constituents tonight. I assure her that we will keep a close eye on what happens. I hope that in the coming months we shall see a far more responsible approach—
	The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	Adjourned at five minutes past Eleven o'clock.